Supreme Court Declines to Hear Voting Rights, Environmental Cases

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's rejection of *RMS of Georgia v. EPA* leaves in place federal regulations governing refrigerants, impacting companies and consumers in Georgia that utilize air conditioning and refrigeration systems.

---

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear several cases with significant policy implications, including a voting rights dispute and an environmental challenge to federal refrigerant regulations. The justices rejected a petition in *Arkansas United v. Thurston*, which raised the question of whether private citizens can enforce Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. That provision allows voters who are blind, disabled, or unable to read or write to receive assistance at the polls. The case originated from a challenge to an Arkansas state law prohibiting anyone except election officials from helping more than six voters. The Court also rejected *RMS of Georgia v. EPA*, a challenge to an Environmental Protection Agency rule governing the phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons, the common refrigerants used in air conditioning and refrigeration systems. In a third case, the justices denied review in *Game Plan v. Uninterrupted IP*, a trademark dispute over the phrase "More Than an Athlete." A Maryland charity and Uninterrupted IP, a media company co-founded by NBA player LeBron James, contested ownership of the mark. The lower court ruled in Uninterrupted IP's favor. The Supreme Court declined the case without requesting a response from the winning party, indicating minimal serious consideration of the petition. The Court took a different approach in two other cases, requesting written views from the U.S. solicitor general before deciding whether to hear them. In *Saadeh v. New Jersey State Bar Association*, a lawyer challenging the bar association's practice of reserving leadership positions for members of specific minority groups sought Supreme Court intervention. The lawyer, who describes himself as a Palestinian and Muslim leader within the state bar, argues he cannot qualify for these designated positions. A New Jersey appeals court upheld the practice under the First Amendment, writing that requiring the association to alter or eliminate its diversity leadership program would "significantly burden the expression of its views." The lawyer argued in his petition that "illegal discrimination does not become a constitutional right when the discriminator discriminates in the name of 'diversity.'" The bar association countered that the lawyer lacks legal standing to sue and noted that its leadership-selection process has changed to open all at-large seats through multiple pathways. The justices also requested the solicitor general's views on *Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. O'Day*, a pharmaceutical industry challenge to an Oregon law requiring drug makers to report information about certain prescription drug prices to the state for public posting on a website. The Court did not act on other high-profile cases it considered for the first time last week. These included three petitions challenging Arizona voting restrictions, such as a proof-of-citizenship requirement for presidential and mail-in voting. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld a lower-court decision striking down those restrictions. Another pending case involves whether parents have the right to challenge a Washington State law allowing runaway teenagers to receive mental health care, including gender transition treatment, at licensed shelters without parental consent. These orders came from the justices' June 18 conference. The Court will hold another conference June 25, its final regularly scheduled meeting before summer recess. The justices are expected to release orders from that conference on Monday, June 29, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.